Trump rolls back Biden-era fuel economy standards, paving way for more gas-powered cars

[DeluxeStang]

47 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

 

Can you explain the difference? 

Cheap is basically built to the lowest standard possible, to be as cheap to buy as a new car could be. Affordable is basically making a car great value for what it offers, but not necessarily the lowest price. 

 

Like using cars I've owned as an example, I had a 2009 Kia Rio. That was a car that was like 11 grand brand new, but frankly was a shit box. It wasn't super unreliable, the powertrain didn't have a single issue in 13 years and 110k miles. But it had a lot of smaller issues like if you parked and turned it off with the wheels turned, the key wouldn't turn in the ignition when you went to restart it. So you'd have to wrestle the wheel as straight as possible and then try to start it. Basically just a lot of issues over time that made you say "Wow they cheaped out on everything". Like hand crank windows and door locks, my entire door was about as thick as the door panel on my 2017 explorer, just didn't feel safe. The steering wheel would shake back and forth violently at highway speeds. Just not a great ownership experience. 

 

Whereas my maverick hybrid, I would call that an affordable car. It wasn't cheap, it was significantly more expensive than my Rio, I bought one of the first hybrids and it was about 28k for my XLT after registration and sales tax with a few options. Despite being more than twice the price of the rio, it feels like better value. Like a maverick doesn't feel like a shit box. It doesn't feel like a luxury car, but I feel like I'm getting more dollar for dollar in terms of value than I did with my Rio. 

[akirby]

3 hours ago, Biker16 said:

To be clear, the industry can build affordable cars, but the stock market and investors are not incentivizing them to do so. There aren't groups of investors clamoring for Ford to make affordable cars, but there is a large group of investors clamoring for Ford to continue to make high-margin, large fuel-guzzling vehicles. That have driven company profits for the better part of four decades. 

 

Every financial report from Ford in the last two decades have highlighted average selling price as a key fundamental for the company. ASP growth has led to profit growth, affordability will do the opposite unless structural changes are made to reduce the cost structure. Which is challenging in a high tariff environment. 

Investors care about bottom line profit not so much where it comes from with the exception of diversification.  There is no reason to believe making new more affordable vehicles would compromise profitability of other vehicles to the point that it's a net loss.  But to answer your other question affordable doesn't mean cheap -  these won't be the absolute cheapest vehicle but would still be in the lower tier of pricing.  Think previous Focus not Nissan Versa.  This, combined with lower costs (remember ce1 brings a completely different design and manufacturing process) should allow Ford to still turn a healthy profit as opposed to the previous situation where they were only good for CAFE compliance.  
 

This also represents an opportunity for revenue growth.  It's not going to displace higher profit sales - those sales are already going to Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota already. 
 

What you see as corporate greed with automakers dropping small cars is the direct result of too stringent CAFE rules -  the opposite of what was intended.

 

Tariffs are only there to ensure a level playing field.  Trump offered to drop ours if they drop theirs.  Why should we allow other countries to put our producers at a disadvantage with tariffs while we let them export here for free?  And we've already seen commitments for moving production to the US in response.

 

 

 

[Biker16]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Investors care about bottom line profit not so much where it comes from with the exception of diversification.  There is no reason to believe making new more affordable vehicles would compromise profitability of other vehicles to the point that it's a net loss.  But to answer your other question affordable doesn't mean cheap -  these won't be the absolute cheapest vehicle but would still be in the lower tier of pricing.  Think previous Focus not Nissan Versa.  This, combined with lower costs (remember ce1 brings a completely different design and manufacturing process) should allow Ford to still turn a healthy profit as opposed to the previous situation where they were only good for CAFE compliance.  
 

This also represents an opportunity for revenue growth.  It's not going to displace higher profit sales - those sales are already going to Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota already. 

 

Ford cancelled Focus, Fiesta, the Escape, and every other Affordable Vehicle due to a Structural inability to make money in low-margin segments. 

Affordable vs. cheap is a distinction without a difference.

The 2012 Focus was affordable, but the 2019 Focus was cheap. Neither were profitable🤣

Based on how some talk about CE1 (which gives off Tesla Hype vibes), it will never deliver all the hope people ascribe to it.  I struggle to imagine how an ultra-low-cost EV platform designed to be sold in a country that shuns EVs can successfully spawn affordable ICE Vehicles, especially when the cost drivers of EVs and ICE vehicles are so different.  
 

3 hours ago, akirby said:

What you see as corporate greed with automakers dropping small cars is the direct result of too stringent CAFE rules -  the opposite of what was intended.

  Bro, we literally have a Ford Decontenting Thread to track how Ford drops vehicle features to increase corporate profit.

Anyway, Ford has been clear on the reasons they stopped selling cars. This is the First time I am hearing that CAFE was the reason.

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Tariffs are only there to ensure a level playing field.  Trump offered to drop ours if they drop theirs.  Why should we allow other countries to put our producers at a disadvantage with tariffs while we let them export here for free?  And we've already seen commitments for moving production to the US in response.

 

 

This is funny, because it makes 0 Sense.  
Mexico and Canada: had no tariffs on US-made vehicles until the US placed tariffs on Canadian and Mexican-made vehicles. Japan and S. Korea:  don't buy US-made vehicles because they don't fit. There is no amount of tariffs that will change that.  Europe: Subsidiaries of US companies seem to underperform in those markets and offer less competitive products.

The result is higher-priced vehicles in the market, which need more affordable ones.

[Sherminator98]

11 hours ago, Biker16 said:

Ford cancelled Focus, Fiesta, the Escape, and every other Affordable Vehicle due to a Structural inability to make money in low-margin segments. 

Affordable vs. cheap is a distinction without a difference.

 

But yet you completely ignore the Maverick and Bronco Sport, which are "affordable" without being cheap-they turn a profit presumably and offer up sale value post sale in the form of accessories, further increasing their profits. The Escape is going away in North America, but will apparently live on in other parts of the world and the Focus and Fiesta went away due to EU markets wanting CUVs like NA. There is a replacement coming for it that will be based off the Maverick, which will help it be profitable hopefully-the Kuga based C1/2 platform really hurt the Escape for the past 12 years or so due to it being overly premium for this market at least. 

 

Quote

Based on how some talk about CE1 (which gives off Tesla Hype vibes), it will never deliver all the hope people ascribe to it.  I struggle to imagine how an ultra-low-cost EV platform designed to be sold in a country that shuns EVs can successfully spawn affordable ICE Vehicles, especially when the cost drivers of EVs and ICE vehicles are so different.  

 

While the actual design of the CE1 can't or isn't well suited to going to ICE, the processes of how its made and design can be.

 

The other thing with the CE1 is that it will offer a form factor that is appealing at a price point that is affordable and will be desirable to buyers. IMO the vast majority of desirable EVs start in the 50-60K range-if that price point can be dropped 15-20K, you'll find more buyers will to try it because it will be affordable.

 

Also it seems like CE1 will be designed from the get go to easily/profitably spawn other models like a sedan/CUV/Van easily that will help pay for development costs. 

Edited December 6, 2025 by Sherminator98

[Biker16]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

But yet you completely ignore the Maverick and Bronco Sport, which are "affordable" without being cheap-they turn a profit presumably and offer up sale value post sale in the form of accessories, further increasing their profits. The Escape is going away in North America, but will apparently live on in other parts of the world and the Focus and Fiesta went away due to EU markets wanting CUVs like NA. There is a replacement coming for it that will be based off the Maverick, which will help it be profitable hopefully-the Kuga based C1/2 platform really hurt the Escape for the past 12 years or so due to it being overly premium for this market at least. 

 
Let's play a Game 
Affordability is a Data point, Cheapness is a Feeling.

Comparing the Starting prices of the 2026 Escape, Bronco Sport and Maverick to the 2014 Escape Fiesta and Focus in 2025 and 2014 Dollars. 

 

Adjusted for inflation, the price for an entry-level Ford vehicle in 2025 is  45-64% higher than it was in 2014




Finally, when compared with US household income, Ford's most affordable vehicle in 2026 would represent 34% of Median household income vs 26% in 2014, or a 31% higher share of a household's income in 2025 vs 2014. 

This does not include the impact of higher interest rates 



When we talk about affordable, I believe this is what we mean.  Ford stopped selling Affordable vehicles in favor of profits. 
 

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

While the actual design of the CE1 can't or isn't well suited to going to ICE, the processes of how its made and design can be.

 

The other thing with the CE1 is that it will offer a form factor that is appealing at a price point that is affordable and will be desirable to buyers. IMO the vast majority of desirable EVs start in the 50-60K range-if that price point can be dropped 15-20K, you'll find more buyers will to try it because it will be affordable.

 

Also it seems like CE1 will be designed from the get go to easily/profitably spawn other models like a sedan/CUV/Van easily that will help pay for development costs. 

The unboxed assembly process doesn't apply to ICE vehicles, there will be benifits From the eletrical archtecture but the assembly process isn't as transferable. 
 

 

Edited December 6, 2025 by Biker16

[Joe771476]

CT's moron governor says this will make cars less efficient and reduce MPG numbers. The car mfrs. are not going to intentionally make less efficient engines.  And people aren't dropping like flies from CO2.  I know 500 people and only one has asthma. Every human exhales 2.2 lbs. of CO2 per day. CO2 is CO2, no matter where it comes from. The population of the country/world has probably doubled in the last 50 years. So let's do away with people!  Oh we are, they're called AI robots/androids!  Check out the youtube video of Zager & Evans' IN THE YEAR  2525 with the middle aged woman in black and white.

[Biker16]

1 hour ago, Joe771476 said:

CT's moron governor says this will make cars less efficient and reduce MPG numbers. The car mfrs. are not going to intentionally make less efficient engines.  And people aren't dropping like flies from CO2.  I know 500 people and only one has asthma. Every human exhales 2.2 lbs. of CO2 per day. CO2 is CO2, no matter where it comes from. The population of the country/world has probably doubled in the last 50 years. So let's do away with people!  Oh we are, they're called AI robots/androids!  Check out the youtube video of Zager & Evans' IN THE YEAR  2525 with the middle aged woman in black and white.

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Biker16 said:

Adjusted for inflation, the price for an entry-level Ford vehicle in 2025 is  45-64% higher than it was in 2014

Notice Escape is actually cheaper now?  And you can't compare a well equipped 4 door Maverick to a cheap 3 door Focus or Fiesta that was sold at a loss as a CAFE offset.  
 

So yes Ford stopped selling dirt cheap cars that lost money in favor of slightly more expensive vehicles that make money.  How dare they do that.....   

 

If you want to provide cheap vehicles as a community service then go start a non profit.  

[Biker16]

10 minutes ago, akirby said:

Notice Escape is actually cheaper now?  And you can't compare a well equipped 4 door Maverick to a cheap 3 door Focus or Fiesta that was sold at a loss as a CAFE offset.  
 

So yes Ford stopped selling dirt cheap cars that lost money in favor of slightly more expensive vehicles that make money.  How dare they do that.....   

 

If you want to provide cheap vehicles as a community service then go start a non profit.  

 

Someone once said

"Ford is in the business of making money, not making vehicles." 

 

This explained the cancellation of small cars, large cars, midsize cars, all cars, the Ranger, the Bronco, Transit Connect, Windstar, Aerostar, etc.

 

CAFE and profitability are excuses for the lack of investment in competitive products. 

 

There, Ford struggles to build low-margin vehicles profitably. It's been this way for decades.  There isn't any evidence that this has changed.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Biker16

[Sherminator98]

36 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

 

Someone once said

"Ford is in the business of making money, not making vehicles." 

 

This explained the cancellation of small cars, large cars, midsize cars, all cars, the Ranger, the Bronco, Transit Connect, Windstar, Aerostar, etc.

 

CAFE and profitability are excuses for the lack of investment in competitive products. 

 

There, Ford struggles to build low-margin vehicles profitably. It's been this way for decades.  There isn't any evidence that this has changed.

Your just moving the goal posts bringing up products that where stopped being made 30-40 years ago with acknowledging that the market has changed in several different ways during that time. 
 

Small cars haven’t made a profit for the big three for over 45 years…why would they do so now? 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

There, Ford struggles to build low-margin vehicles profitably. It's been this way for decades.  There isn't any evidence that this has changed.

We've said that for years.  It's always been that way thanks in part to high labor costs.  The only reason they kept building them in the 80s, 90s and 2000s is because of UAW contracts and CAFE benefits.  That's also the reason they didn't care about platform costs.  They didn't expect them to be profitable.
 

The only difference is you're saying they just quit making them and we're saying they replaced or are replacing most of them with new better products.  

[Joe771476]

12 hours ago, Biker16 said:

 

Looks like somebody clicked on this. I didn't because on my old computer it said I had a virus when I clicked on an IQ test. I shut computer off and rebooted and it was fine again. Last time I took an offline IQ test it was rather high, but I don't remember the score.  My high school math teachers use to make me tutor my classmates in Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry.  Does that count?

[twintornados]

16 hours ago, akirby said:

We've said that for years.  It's always been that way thanks in part to high labor cost The only reason they kept building them in the 80s, 90s and 2000s is because of UAW contracts and CAFE benefits.....

 

Don't be so quick to just blame "high labor costs", Japanese workers of the same era were compensated similarly and their product was 1st rate....US industry built crap because that was how it was designed by their respective manufacturers. US consumers got tired of buying the inferior designed cars built domestically and began to gravitate to Japanese models that were designed better and lasted longer. 

 

[Sherminator98]

55 minutes ago, twintornados said:

 

Don't be so quick to just blame "high labor costs", Japanese workers of the same era were compensated similarly and their product was 1st rate....US industry built crap because that was how it was designed by their respective manufacturers. US consumers got tired of buying the inferior designed cars built domestically and began to gravitate to Japanese models that were designed better and lasted longer. 

 

 

Also keep in mind that the Japanese Yen was strong against the USD up until early 1990s when they had their market crash that resulted in a lost decade. They also have built in healthcare paid by the country and not privately like it is in the USA. 

[Biker16]

On 12/7/2025 at 12:19 AM, Joe771476 said:

Looks like somebody clicked on this. I didn't because on my old computer it said I had a virus when I clicked on an IQ test. I shut computer off and rebooted and it was fine again. Last time I took an offline IQ test it was rather high, but I don't remember the score.  My high school math teachers use to make me tutor my classmates in Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry.  Does that count?

 

For the record, you think people should pee in cups on long trips to maximize the advantage of fast refueling times of gas vehicles.